WTC7 seems to be a classic controlled demolition. WTC 1 &2 destruction appears to have been enhanced by thermate (a variation of thermite) in addition.
Pentagon was not struck by a passenger aircraft. It was a drone or missle.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Re: [political-research] Bloglines - Making the Case

Like the author of this blog, I regularly review all the evidence about 9/11 in my mind, looking for weaknesses in the case that it was an inside job. At the end of each exercise I come away with the absolute certainty, stronger each time, that it was in fact an inside job. The evidence is not only overwhelming in detail but perfect in its consistency. To hear the official story is to laugh. No wonder that no one in the political establishment wants to discuss the official story on 9/11, or go into any detail about what actually happened on that day. It was not simply an inside job, but a grotesquely botched inside job. It will not withstand any kind of real scrutiny or analysis.

The defenders of the official story continue to pursue the only strategy that is available to them: stonewall, say nothing, and hope that the skeptics will eventually grow weary of banging their heads against the stone wall of silence and non-response from the government and mainstream media. But I doubt that that this strategy will work. Their likely next move is to stage a nuclear attack on American soil, blame Osama bin Laden, and shut down all free speech on the Internet while carting off all dissenters to detention camps. But they are worried that doing so would trigger a civil war within the government that they would probably lose.

My best hunch about the overall direction of events is that in the end the 9/11 conspirators are going to lose and lose badly, in exactly the same way that the Nazi leadership lost and lost badly. After the initial successes, the rush of power to the head, the Nazi enterprise collapsed under the weight of its own insanity and delusional disconnect from reality. The Bush administration has gotten dangerously out of touch with the core values, attitudes and energies of the United States and American culture. The neocons and Busheviks, misreading the world around them, are pushing matters to the breaking point.

Humint Events OnlineThe 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist "Pearl Harbor" event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries. This weblog will explore the incredibly strange events of 9/11/01, and other issues of US government responsibility.

While in general I love writing this blog, the one thing I am never sure of is how much I am "preaching to the choir" on 9/11 and how much I am trying to "convert the heathens" to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

So, in general, I try to write analyses of 9/11 on the assumption that people realize 9/11 was an inside job; but clearly there are some people who are not converted and it is always fun to tweak them or at least try to get them thinking. Certainly pointing out the many oddities of 9/11 should in THEORY get the unconverted thinking. Someone like Pinch, however, is a hopeless case.

However, the funny thing is that I often have doubts myself about the things I write here. I often feel like I have to prove that 9/11 was an inside job over and over just to MYSELF (I think the reason for this is because there is so much mainstream resistance to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job). Thus, almost every day, I go over in my head all the evidence that I think is most compelling that implies that 9/11 was an inside job. Of course, I don't want to write this information down every time I post, because it would be boring and redundant after a while (though I have written it down in the past). But all of my current posts are predicated on a long list of hard evidence, and therefore my newer posts on "no planes" may seem ridiculous when taken on their own, but make more sense in the greater context of 9/11 evidence. In this regard, it is interesting to view my evolution as a 9/11 skeptic-- for instance, read some of my very early blog posts and contrast with what I write today. Early on, I was not at all convinced that the WTC towers were demolished, and I didn't even know what WTC7 was until about a year ago. I wasn't sure what happened at the Pentagon, and I even was fairly sure it was hit by a Boeing 757.

I have read a LOT about 9/11 from many different sources; I have not come to my current state of mind easily or rapidly. Nonetheless, I was always a bit suspicious of 9/11, from the moment I first heard what was going on that morning-- but I was in too much of a shock to think it was an inside job in any depth. The first thing I realized about 9/11, and I was very right about this, was how 9/11 would transform Bush and make him very powerful. I very much worried even on 9/11 that he would take advantage the attacks to suit his political ends. When I heard Bush proclaim a very long if not endless "war on terror" in the 2002 State of the Union Address, my heart sank.

The first time serious doubts about 9/11 came up for air was in May 2002, when it came out that Bush had been warned of the attacks, and Newsday published that famous headline "Bush Knew". Then I started looking around for more information and eventually found Mike Ruppert's site "From the Wilderness". I was so nervous about going to that site the first few times, I thought I would get in trouble by the CIA/NSA (though I quickly got over that, thankfully). In early 2002, Ruppert's site basically put out the idea that there were many forewarnings of the 9/11 attacks and that Bush HAD to have known what was going to happen-- basically the "Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP)" idea.

The first book I read on 9/11 was David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor". It emphasized the lack of air defenses, disucussed some of the strange behaviours of the Bush administration regarding 9/11 and also introduced me to the concept that the towers were demolished by explosives. I WAS NOT convinced that 9/11 was an inside job by Griffin's book, and I WAS NOT convinced at all that the WTC towers were brought down by demolition. However, I did know that if it could be proved that the towers were demolished intentionally, it would convince me that 9/11 was an inside job. So I did more reading. I read Dan Hopsicker's book "Welcome to Terrorland", and although I was dubious about some of his findings and some of the bizarre aspects of his story, I thought he made a decent case that the hijackers had CIA connections.

What actually convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job

Although Mike Ruppert gets a lot of grief from 9/11 activists, and I surely have mixed feelings about him and his research methods and for his emphasis on "peak oil", what I will give Ruppert credit for is making the case to me that 9/11 was an inside job. And he did it all without showing any physical evidence. Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" is what finally convinced me, pushed me over the edge into hard-core 9/11 skepticism. In retrospect, "Crossing the Rubicon" is not a very good book, in terms of length, getting distracted with "peak oil" and overall coherence. However the book was still very important at the time for putting together a lot of important non-mainstream facts about 9/11.

What finally convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job, apart from the earlier evidence on forwarnings and lack of air defense, was the findings that NORAD:1) had run plane into building defense drills prior to 9/112) ran hijacking defense exercises prior to 9/113) was running several air force drills on 9/114) even ran a live-fly hijacking drill ON 9/11!

The fact that NORAD had been preparing for exactly what happened on 9/11 was just too much for me. This evidence, with the lack of air defenses, the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, evidence that the Pakistanis were heavily involved with Al Qaeda and 9/11, made the whole official 9/11 story STINK TO HIGH HEAVEN.

So from there, I evolved quite a bit. Webster Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror 9/11: Made in USA" did a great job of putting 9/11 in historical perspective and showed how covert operations could be run.

I started hanging out at the September 11th board at Democratic Underground and met two great people: (ironically similarly named) John Doe II and Jane Doe.

DU's John Doe II showed me the true weirdness of Flight 93-- everything about the official story, and he finally convinced me that there was no real plane crash in Shanksville.

DU's Jane Doe, an engineering professor, was the one who finally convinced me that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives. In other words, it took an EXPERT to prove demolition to me! (So how gullible can I be, truly?) Later I learned of Professor Steven Jones and I actually helped persuade him to go public. I published some of Jones' first writings about demolition here on my blog.

Ultimately, what I have always been the MOST interested in is how 9/11 was designed and run by the insiders-- the government perpetrators.

Were there real hijackers and hijackings? Were the hijackings acted out? How did the 9/11 hijackings fit with the NORAD live-fly hijacking drill being run that day? How were the four 9/11 planes flown? Were there plane substitutions with remote control drones? Were there real planes?

What it all boils down to is that there is evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 9/11 was a massive military psychological operation perpetrated on the American people, i.e. it was an inside job: the WTC towers were brought down by explosives and that even the hijackings and attack planes were a hoax.

I'm really a fairly normal guy, and the realization of 9/11 being an inside job was EXTREMELY depressing to me. I underwent a paradigm shift in terms of how I view politics and the government. It is very troubling to live with this knowledge. I do not enjoy this knowledge, and this is why I seek some relief through this blog. By spreading the word on 9/11 (and other covert operations), I can only hope to get people to understand the deep evils that persist in our country, and thus try to effect some sort of systemic change.